***Rumsfield Stepping Down***

[ted]

Better to unite them in one geographic location, than to let them disperse and form 1000 different cells plotting death and destruction all over the world and in our backyards.

Yup, but I'm not sure if that was part of the initial plan or not.

Somehow, I think that it was expected that Iraqi's would simply be overjoyed with Saddam out and that we expected them to take care of any outside opposition quickly and efficiently.

Ooops.

As for the Dems way of dealing with Iraq, I really don't think it will be that different. I, for one, never fell for their claims of this war being wrong. I think the only reason they objected was that it was for the reason to make GB look dumb.

I think they have decided long ago that they would torment the next Republican President after Clinton and eventually find a way to impeach him as a way of payback for the Clinton impeachment.

I think it was a determined plan, as well- and not accidental.

They took the opposite side of the war because they feel like it would be enough to one day impeach Bush.

I don't think that they will do much different in the war in Iraq. I think they were for it all along in the first place, but simply could not side with their real enemy, Bush.

To do so would cause Bush to be legitimate- and that's something they will not be a part of.

Not until they get their one impeachment, anyway. Only after that will they think that revenge has been satisfied enough to move on.

t.

[Hypathia]

It seems to me that after 9/11 we should have concentrated on Afghanistan; put all our emphasis on that region. --- Also, I don't think National Guardsmen should be deployed overseas. It's the National Guard not the International Guard, now, National Guardsmen could have been called up to fill in at our bases while the active duty personel went to the war zone.

I think all these "excuses" to condone the attack on Iraq are just that, excuses. Pat Buchanan said that the desire by neocons to attack Iraq had been in the works as far back as 1996 and that 9/11 was just an excuse. I think he's telling the truth. Now we've lost our momentum, the deficit has gone from 20 trillion (in 2000) to 43 trillion and yet our troops don't have the best equipment or support when they return. Yet Donald Rumsfeld tells the troops, "you go to war with what you got"? I for one am glad to see Rumsfeld go! Somebody is getting rich off the blood of American military men and women; I hope the democrats launch an investigation into where the money went because our troops sure as heck haven't gotten it.

[chapmac]

It seems to me that after 9/11 we should have concentrated on Afghanistan; put all our emphasis on that region. --- Also, I don\'t think National Guardsmen should be deployed overseas. It\'s the National Guard not the International Guard, now, National Guardsmen could have been called up to fill in at our bases while the active duty personel went to the war zone.

I think all these \"excuses\" to condone the attack on Iraq are just that, excuses. Pat Buchanan said that the desire by neocons to attack Iraq had been in the works as far back as 1996 and that 9/11 was just an excuse. I think he\'s telling the truth. Now we\'ve lost our momentum, the deficit has gone from 20 trillion (in 2000) to 43 trillion and yet our troops don\'t have the best equipment or support when they return. Yet Donald Rumsfeld tells the troops, \"you go to war with what you got\"? I for one am glad to see Rumsfeld go! Somebody is getting rich off the blood of American military men and women; I hope the democrats launch an investigation into where the money went because our troops sure as heck haven\'t gotten it.

had we been directed to deploy enough troops to afghanistan and rightfully vindicated 9 11 a lot of this mess could have been avoided and most likely the majority of the clean up behind us

any investigations will likely be at the hands of true americans demanding answers

both democrats and republicans alike are sick of the lies and garbage fed to us over the past few years the recent elections said as much

the people woke up and took back control of their country from the dictatorship we were headed towards

i thank god for it for the sake of america

[Hypathia]

Chapman --- you touch on an important point, dicatorship. That's exactly what this administration has become; they thought they were beholden to NO-ONE and they operated as such. Now they call for "co-operation"?? I am worried though that with the democrats in charge of the congress and senate that two years from now the republicans will blame the whole mess on them. Still, I'm thankful that the democrats have some oversight control back. People need to be "on their toes" and not rely on propaganda machines like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to get their information (and RICH evangelical leaders too). Oversight is needed as well as a big dose of "truth-slinging".

[Giaour]

Terrorist attacks on America did not start on 9-11.

USA is not the aggressor in this war.

Because previous administrations were ineffective, Bush was left with a mess to clean up.

Has everyone forgotten

USS Cole

US Embassy Bombings

Khobar Towers Bombing

Oklahoma City Bombing

World Trade Center Bombing - 1993

Rumsfield was expected to solve decades of problems in just a few short years.

Those who called for his resignation were just far too impatient.....

They want a quick fix and if it doen't happen that way, they believe it is because of leadership faults.

Well, that's just not so.

[Hypathia]

Terrorist attacks on America did not start on 9-11.

USA is not the aggressor in this war.

Because previous administrations were ineffective, Bush was left with a mess to clean up.

Has everyone forgotten

USS Cole

US Embassy Bombings

Khobar Towers Bombing

Oklahoma City Bombing

World Trade Center Bombing - 1993

Rumsfield was expected to solve decades of problems in just a few short years.

Those who called for his resignation were just far too impatient.....

They want a quick fix and if it doen't happen that way, they believe it is because of leadership faults.

Well, that's just not so.

There've been convictions and sentencing in at least two of those that I know of. Rumsefeld had a total disregard for the troops on the ground in my opinion. ----- When the British attacked the colonists who were fighting for Independence they fought a conventional (at that time) war. They marched in in formation and the colonists started doing it like the Indians....hiding behind trees, taking cover, picking the british off. They British thought that was "unfair" guerilla tactics....but it worked. With Muslim terrorists you have to change tactics and adapt to the situation to fight effectively. We're not fighting effectively in Iraq imo.

[ted]

It seems to me that after 9/11 we should have concentrated on Afghanistan; put all our emphasis on that region. --- Also, I don't think National Guardsmen should be deployed overseas. It's the National Guard not the International Guard, now, National Guardsmen could have been called up to fill in at our bases while the active duty personel went to the war zone.

There was a National Guard before there was a standing National Army. The Guard has been a huge part of every war we have been involved in.

In fact, there were many who were opposed to a standing National Army when our nation was long. The idea was for it to always be a "citizen" based Army which would be called up as needed. Many were afraid that a full-time standing Army would give the Federal Government too much power.

Why would we change that now the role of a citizen-based reserve system now? You would make them nothing more than Post cleaners while the Active service shoulders the entire load?

And what would they do when they filled in at RA posts? The idea of the posts is to garrison troops, train and remain ready for war. You suggest that the Guard should go to these bases, let only the AD fight, yet they should train to fight for no reason? What exactly would the Guard units do on these posts while only the active duty troops went overseas?

As well, there was a law passed years ago (in the '30's, if I remember correctly), that placed National Guard troops on a Federal level anyway. You may not have known this when you wrote that last piece, of course. Although the individual states maintain readiness and daily control over them, they can be returned to active service at any time. Thus, the old State Militias turned into a National Guard to be used as a State-maintained Reserve component. Sorry, but that's just the way it is now, and has been for some time. All it takes is some orders, a flick of the payroll switch, and the Guard becomes Active Duty.

Trust me, I went through it in '03-'04.

Do a bit of search on the Guard and Reserve and how they participated in WWII when you get a chance. I think you'll be surprised at the ratio of combat troops between traditionally active and reserve units....

Chapman --- you touch on an important point, dicatorship. That's exactly what this administration has become; they thought they were beholden to NO-ONE and they operated as such.

A dictatorship which expires in two more years? A dictatorship with a two-term limit? I've never seen one like that before. Kinda unique, wouldn't you say?

If you stand back and look at things, you will see that Bush is trying to put laws in place that will help future Presidents with their part of the WOT whether they are Republican or Democrats.

He's not going to somehow remain after his term and claim to be Emperor of the US.

Relax.

Rather than an attitude of "beholden to no one", he has instead tried to cut some of the red tape which hinders a war like we are in. I'm sorry, but he has some of this stuff right.

He's not the smartest guy in the world, but he has enough insight not to let this stuff drag on forever. Now, that will be seriously challenged and I fear the results will hamper our efforts.

But, hey, challenge at the top is grand, right? No matter the consequences, as long as we challenge everything, things will be just fine.

Perfect.

In the mean time, our enemies rejoice (oh yes, just read the latest news reports out of the middle-east) in the fact that we will now spend our time questioning everything to death instead of making a real effort to catch them. Nothing could brighten their day faster!

There've been convictions and sentencing in at least two of those that I know of. Rumsefeld had a total disregard for the troops on the ground in my opinion. ----- When the British attacked the colonists who were fighting for Independence they fought a conventional (at that time) war. They marched in in formation and the colonists started doing it like the Indians....hiding behind trees, taking cover, picking the british off. They British thought that was "unfair" guerilla tactics....but it worked. With Muslim terrorists you have to change tactics and adapt to the situation to fight effectively. We're not fighting effectively in Iraq imo.

I agree.

The reason we are no longer effective in Iraq is because we care more about what the "international community" says about are tactics, than actually carrying out certain missions the way they should be.

We can't hide behind anything there because someone will automatically say that it is a holy site or a mosque. We can't put a scare into anyone because that is now labeled as torture.

We can't actively pursue anyone because they hide in "schools" and "mosques". We can't increase troop levels because that would be seen as a failure by some idiots. Heck, we can't even maintain our current levels without someone saying that we should have some idiotic time table to get them out.

We can't take out their leaders because they are serving as presidents of other countries like Iran. We can't even pick our noses after a walk down a dusty road because it might be done with the wrong hand, thereby enraging the person that saw it and having the violation result in an international incident.

As for learning lessons from the Revolutionary War- we did. We also learned a thing or two from Vietnam. We have dramatically increased or number of Special Forces to meet some of this stuff, but, not everything can be SF. There's just no way.

So, we have to use conventional forces, as well. But even then, we have revamped the conventional forces, as well.

It takes money though, something which will be even harder to come by in the next two years.

Maybe you could call your Congressman each time an increase is on the table to ensure we get it?

How would you like to fight in a boxing match with both feet taped to the mat, your left arm tied behind your back, and your right hand broken just to make it fair? Your opponent could beat you with the ring bell, but if you tried to duck, they would deduct points from you. All of this with the crowd yelling that you shouldn't have been in the ring in the first place!

I guess that's the price we pay for having morals, but some tried anyway.

So, other than "we should have gotten Bin Laden" what's your suggestion for the Iraq war?

Starting tomorrow morning, what would you suggest we do to win?

Now, as far as this "we should have gotten Bin Laden" stuff, let's break it down:

-We were close to him

-We pursued his convoys into the mountains connecting Afghanistan and Pakistan

-We backed our own troops off and sent the Afghan's in for the kill (big mistake)

-We realized he slipped into Pakistan

Now what?

You would suggest that we venture into another country to get him? You do realize that the Government of Pakistan doesn't even have control of that area, right? In other words, we are stuck for the moment. Normal infiltration techniques barely work in this region, too, so it's hard to send in Rambo to blend in.

We are at a point where we have to wait for him to make a mistake. Not very likely, as cowards are good at hiding and sending little boys in to blow themselves up for their causes.

Sooooo....given that, in some people's mind, everything has been one big failure up to this point, what's next?

How do you think we should proceed?

Thanks,

t.

[Guest yod]

Al Quida and every other Islamo-fascist organization sees Democrat gains as a victory for their side.

That's pretty much all I need to know

[David H.]

Part of me believes, though, that we knew they would come in once we were there and it was a secondary plan to draw them there as a means to pool them and concentrate them in one area as a means to better fight them.

Ted, The first I heard that Al Qaeda was streaming in in numbers, I thought the same thing. I said, "Brilliant! Draw them all in ON SOMEONE ELSE'S SOIL, and then close the net around them."

I no longer hold that theory, however, because we did not seem at all prepared to draw the net. In fact, we have not even been able to kill the kingpins without a considerable amount of time. Iraq is, at least, keeping Al Qaeda occupied off of our soil, but so much for closing the net and killing them all. In the long run, it could be much worse for us because there are so many we can't seem to kill for whom this was their recruiting ground and training ground and is now a new place of covert operations, which it was not before.

They are a power hungry, greedy, corrupt party and it won't take them long to convince the conservatives, that voted them in office, of that.

I agree, Justin, and your description also sounds just like the Republican party to me. Frankly, I'd be glad to line up both parties in a gauntlet, them facing out and bent over, and kick every one of them in the butt. Notice it didn't take long to convince CONSERVATIVES that voted the REPUBLICANS into office, that things weren't going so well. Let's see, under George Bush we've had:

An amnesty plan for migrant workers so that we can outsource the remaining jobs that CANNOT leave the country simply because they involve work that has to be done here.

The largest expansion of government I've seen in my lifetime with a whole new bureaucracy created to solve the problem of other bureaucracies that couldn't find a way to communicate with each other. (The kind of big government that Repubs used to hate Dems for.)

The largest expansion of government evesdropping in our nation's history. (The kind of big government that Repubs used to hate Dems for.)

A return to enormous deficit spending and government debt (The kind of big government that Repubs used to hate Dems.)

Six years more of porous, insecure borders, until a grass-roots effort to step in and do what the president wouldn't do forced the president to, at least, look like he is doing something about it.

White-water-washed sexual scandals.

Gee, I'm having a hard time remembering why it was I used to vote for Republicans!

Line 'em all up, so I can kick 'em in the butt. At least, now, the Dems can do a little butt-kicking for me. The Jack Asses should be good at that.

--David

Edited November 11, 2006 by David Haggith

[David H.]

As for learning lessons from the Revolutionary War- we did. We also learned a thing or two from Vietnam.

Apparently, not much. Before we went into Iraq, the Democrats strongly warned that this would be another "quagmire" like Vietnam. Bush, like Kennedy, thought it would be a cakewalk because the people of the country would be so happy to be occupied by their saviors. Hardly. It is now becoming the quagmire that it was predicted to become based on our experience as an occupying force in Vietnam.

Now, as far as this "we should have gotten Bin Laden" stuff, let's break it down:

-We were close to him

-We pursued his convoys into the mountains connecting Afghanistan and Pakistan

-We backed our own troops off and sent the Afghan's in for the kill (big mistake)

-We realized he slipped into Pakistan

Now what?

It's not a now-what. It was an INCREDIBLY stupid mistake! I mean, if I started howling the second I heard that's what we were doing and start ranting that we'll lose him for sure, then it had to be pretty stupid for me to realize it so quickly, right?

(I'm givin' ya a wide-open shot here.)

And because it was SOOO stupid, we need the Donkeys to kick some Elephant posterior. (Gee, who'da thunk that multi-millionaire bin Laden would be able to pay off the greedy warlord that apprehended him on the way outa town??? Who coulda guessed that call?)

How do you think we should proceed?

With a new administration that doesn't make such blatantly stupid errors. For the price we pay, we have every right to expect the very highest quality leadership. So dumb mistakes at that level cannot be tolerated. Regular mistakes, yes. Dumb mistakes, no. There has to be accountability, and that's what this election was all about. We're gonna hold some feet to the fire.

Do I smell Republican rump roast?

--David

Edited November 11, 2006 by David Haggith